Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Jsel Securities Limited vs C.C.E., Jaipur I on 26 October, 2009
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-III Date of hearing/decision: 26.10.2009 Service Tax Appeal No.03 of 2007 Arising out of the order in original No.08-09/JPR-I/2006/Service Tax dated 11.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur I. For Approval and Signature: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri D.N.Panda, Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s JSEL Securities Limited . Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I . Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellant Shri Sansar Chand, Authorized Departmental Representative (SDR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri D.N.Panda, Member (Judicial) Oral Order No._____________________ Per D.N.Panda:
Stay Order in this case was passed on 29.1.2007. Adjudication was done on 25.7.2006 raising service tax demand of Rs.7,45,634/- with equal amount of penalty and consequential interest. After passing of the stay order, the matter is coming up on board for hearing from 14.5.08. On that date the matter was adjourned to 10.7.08. Subsequently, at the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant on 25.8.08, the matter was adjourned to 3.10.2008. On that date the matter could not reach for which that was adjourned to 24.11.2008. On 24.11.2008, at the request of the learned Counsel, the matter was directed to be listed for hearing on 9.1.2009. But on 9.1.2009 again at the request of the learned Counsel, the matter was adjourned to 12.2.2009. On 12.2.2009, similar such request was also made for adjournment to 6.4.2009. Thereafter, on 15.5.2009 when the matter was listed, on that date, that did not reach. The matter was again called on 8.7.09 but none present for the appellant. However the matter was adjourned to 3.9.09. Again the matter is on Board today. None is present for the appellant nor also the appellant has filed any application for adjournment. Aforesaid sequential default impresses us that the appellant does not prefer to pursue the appeal further. Therefore considering that the appellant is following a dilatory tactics, useful purpose may not be served if the matter is kept pending for the reason of non-prosecution of the appeal. The same , therefore, calls for dismissal. We order accordingly.
(M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) (D.N.Panda) Member (Judicial) scd/ 2